Orissa Court January 1955 Judgments
Narendranath Mohapatra and ors. Vs. Jogendranath Rout
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-27-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Ori32
Mohapatra, J. 1. The three defendants have brought this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13-4-1951 of Sri T. V. Rao, Subordinate Judge of Balasore arising out of a suit brought by the respondent-plaintiff for setting aside two alienations in favour of the present defendants-appellants by the guardian of the plaintiff while he was a minor. The plaintiff's main case is that the two alienations dated 24-11-1936 (Ext. A) and 14-3-1940 (Ext. D) by one Bipinbehari Mohanty (father's sister's husband of the minor) are not binding against --him as the transactions are not supported by legal necessity of the minor on the dates of alienations.' The defence was that in fact Bipinbehari was the de-facto guardian and the transactions are supported by legal necessity. 2. Both the Courts below have come to the Ending that in fact Bipinbehari was the de facto guardian but nevertheless they have decreed theplaintiff's suit setting aside the alienations on the finding that they are not...
Tag this Judgment!Moni Dei Vs. Hadibandhu Patra and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-25-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Ori73; 21(1955)CLT116
Panigrahi, C.J.1. This case comes before us on a reference by a Division Bench. The question referred to us for our opinion is formulated as follows :'Whether the provisions of Section 3(2), Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 18 of 1937 as amended by Act, 11 of 1938 are retrospective so as to apply to the case of a widow whose husband died prior to the date when the said Act came into force.'This reference was necessitated on account of the majority decision in -- 'Badhi Bewa v. Bhagawan Sahu', AIR 1951 Orissa 378 (SB) (A), according to which Section 3(2) of the Act is retrospective in operation and, consequently, the widow of a Hindu who died before the Act came into force, viz., before 14-4-1937, was entitled to her husband's share provided that the joint family continued till the date when partition was demanded. This view was subjected to much adverse criticism by another Bench of this Court in -- 'Nandakishore v. Sukti Dibya', AIR 1953 Orissa 240 (B). In a later case decided by...
Tag this Judgment!Bachulal and Co. Vs. Commr. of Income-tax
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-25-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Ori83; [1955]27ITR587(Orissa)
Mohapatra, J.1. This is a petition under Section 66(3), Income-tax Act, 1922, the petition of the assesses under Section 68 (1) of the Act requesting the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, to state a case to the High Court having been rejected as barred by limitation by the order of the said Tribunal on 23-4-1952. The order of the Tribunal dated 30-10-1951 passed under Section 33(4) of the Act was served on the petitioner on 3-11-1951. The period of limitation of 60 days for filing application under Section 66(1) of the Act expired on 2-1-1952. The application under Section 66(1) was received by the office of the Tribunal on 2-1-1952 by post, that is, within time. Under the provisions of Section 66(1) this application was to be accompanied by the requisite fee of Rs. 100/-. This fee of Rs. 100 was however received by money order by the Office of the Tribunal on 4-1-1952. The Tribunal consisting of two members (one Judicial member and the other Accountant member), relying up...
Tag this Judgment!Dolagobinda Sahu Vs. Chakradhar Mohapatra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-19-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Ori94
Misra, J.1. This application in revision has been filed by the decree-holder against an order of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge of Cuttack, dated 8-10-1953, wising the decree-holder's prayer to amend the prosecution petition by including certain properties in the list of properties originally appended to the execution petition. The decree in question was passed in Money Suit No. 41 of 1939 on 11-11-40, and the application for amendment was presented on the last day of the period of 12 years prescribed by Section 48, C. P. C. The main ground on which the application was resisted by the judgment-debtors was that it was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 17, C. P. C. Their contention was that Order 21, Rule 17, C. P. C. provides for an amendment of the execution petition when the requirements of Rules 11 to 14 of Order 21 are not complied with. In other words they contended that Order 21, Rule 17, C. P. C. deals with formal amendments, and does not empower the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Kulamani Hota Vs. Parbati Debi
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-18-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Ori77; 21(1955)CLT507
Narasimham, J.1. This is a defendant's appeal against the appellate judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack Dhenkanal reversing the judgment of the Munsif of Athmallik and decreeing the plaintiff's (respondent's) suit for maintenance against her husband, the defendant. The parties are Hindus residing in Athmallik which, is one of the former Orissa States which merged with the Dominion of India by the well-known Merger Agreement which came into force from 1-1-1948. The plaintiff alleged that she is the legally married wife of the defendant and that a daugther was born to them. Later on, however, the defendant took a second wife, ill-treated the plaintiff by giving her shoe-beating and by other kinds of assault and eventually drove her out of his residence. The exact date of the second marriage of the defendant was not given but it was said to have taken place about sixteen years before the date of the filing of the plaint (23-9-1946).The main defence, taken was that the defendant w...
Tag this Judgment!Brundaban Chandra Vs. Ananta Narayan Singh Deo
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-15-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Ori151
Panigrahi, C. J.1. The appeal arises out of an application for Letters of Administration on a certified Copy of a Will. The late Raja Birabar Narayan Chandra Dhir Narendra Bahadur of Madhupur executed and registered the said will on 27-12-1945, in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, who is the second son of his daughter Sm. Brajeswari Devi, bequeathing to him his house at Cuttack, known as Madhupur Kothi.He died on 2-7-1946 at Garh-Madhupur leaving him surviving his adopted son, viz., the defendant-appellant and the said Brajeswari Devi, his only daughter and the mother of the plaintiff. It is the common case of both parties that the late Raja's wife had pre-deceased him, and that his daughter Brajeswari Devi who was married to the Raja of Dharakote and became a widow in 1938 had been living with her father till his death.On the day previous to her marriage the defendant. Shri Brundaban Chandra Dhir Narendra who is the brother of Brajeswari's husband, was adopted by the late Raja of Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Pampana Suryanarayana and ors. Vs. the Joyoti Pictures Ltd.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jan-07-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Ori84
ORDERP.V.B. Rao, J. 1. This is an application by 14 petitioners under Sections 162 and 166, Companies Act, for compulsory winding up of the Joyoti Pictures Ltd., with its Head Office at Berhampur. 2. It is alleged in the petition that petitioners 1 to 14 are contributories, & petitioner 6 and some others are creditors of the Joyoti Pictures Ltd., that the Company is a private Limited Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1918 in 1942; that the Company has a Board of 3 Directors; that the registered office of the Company is at Berhampur in Ganjam District; that the authorised capital of the Company originally stood at Rs. 20,000/- but later on increased to Rs. 50,000/-divided into 250 shares of Rs. 200/- each; that the entire share capital is fully paid up and the petitioners 1 to 14 are consequently fully paid-up share-holders; that the objects of the Company are to exhibit cinema shows, carry on business in all kinds of language cinema films etc., that the number of share...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›